Talk:Royal National Institute of Blind People

[Untitled]

Hello.

I made some significant changes to the RNIB's entry the other day that were then changed back. I'm not sure why!

I work as the senior web editor for RNIB, and thought it would be useful to improve RNIB's stub entry. I've used our current website, annual review and other information (all of it in the public domain) to present an up to date, accurate and useful entry for the organisation.

I took out reference to Galloway Society for the Blind, as it seemed unfair to promote one local society over another. If that's bothered someone, please let me know and we can discuss it.

If you'd like to discuss any other aspects of the content please do.

I hope whoever changed the new content back will understand that, as someone who works for RNIB, I want the charity to be presented as completely and professionally as possible.

Many thanks,

Verity

Shiny1 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The policies that that could be infringed by a large article authored by the subject are WP:NOT and WP:V, especially that “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. The specific issue of self-published material is dealt with under WP:COI, although this does not entirely rule out doing so. There is also the issue of WP:NPOV.

There have been various articles created from time to time that are strongly in praise of (or against) their subjects, sometimes to the point of adopting the first person, and have to be taken down or changed significantly. However, this page is somewhat different in that a) there is no case against the RNIB to discuss b) the page at the moment is informative rather than “in praise of” and c) the page that was replaced didn’t have third-party sources besides other blindness organisations. There is also the fact that primary sources (the organisation’s own statements) are likely to be more accurate than outside ones with regard to policies etc. So it may be possible to allow most of what has been added subject to outside sources being added later, but with regard to the quantity of information about programmes, I would want to compare what has been done for other voluntary organisations. Finally, the other society was Galloway’s (after someone with that name) not Galloway. Billwilson5060 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,I've added more third party references to support the text. I think some references are appropriate to linked to RNIB, e.g. annual report, detail about RNIB's aims/mission/areas of work etc. Can anyone help out with other suggestions of how the article could be improved? Any references I've missed? Thanks. Kat384 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Name “Royal National Institute of Blind People”: 2002 or 2007 ?

The section “History” says : “In 2002, RNIB membership was introduced and the organisation's name changed to Royal National Institute of the Blind. In June 2007 the organisation changed its name again, to Royal National Institute of Blind People.”

The source (History of RNIB) doesn’t say the same thing : “Our name was officially changed to the Royal National Institute for the Blind in 1953, having received the Royal Charter in 1949. In 2002 our name changed to the Royal National Institute of Blind People rather than 'for' blind people when we became a Membership organisation.”

Where is the truth?

--Chrismagnus (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Unsuitable content

User:PlatinumSpheres keeps adding content to this article that's unsuitable for an encyclopedia article meant to be useful and informative to the general public.

• Articles about organizations don't normally go into their internal committee structure; Wikipedia readers have no use for trivia about an organization has a "people committee" or a "nominating committee", and even less so for the composition of those committees. This is the sort of information that belongs on the organization's own web presences. This article is not one of those: see WP:NOTWEBHOST. I've removed the material but the other editor has restored it.
• The same editor has added, and then re-added after I removed it, a bunch of information about visual health in the UK that is irrelevant to this article. It's as though the editor is using the article to speak on behalf of RNIB, which isn't allowed. Again, this article is not a web property of RNIB, and Wikipedia articles need to stay on-topic: see WP:COATRACK.

This material should be removed. The article is already tagged as promotional. It shouldn't devolve further into a PR vehicle. Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom

Please see the abovementioned article. It's subject seems to have become defunct and it's website refers readers to https://www.rnib.org.uk/newsagent

It appears that TNAUK was taken over by RNIB or else RNIB now offers the services formerly offered by TNAUK, without an actual takeover. Editors who are more familiar with the subject should deal with this by merging the TNAUK page into this one or otherwise updating both pages to explain what actually happened. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Update needed

In addition to this article's WP:NOT brochure-esque tone there's an inquiry by the Charity Commission for England and Wales into the organisation's failings in its duty of care over its benefactors some of whom were minors. One of its centres, the RNIB Pears Centre for Specialist Learning was closed down due to allegations of child abuse. The Charity Commission for England and Wales's report is available here. There is also an article in the British Medical Journal (paywalled) and at least two articles in The Guardian

• [1]
• [2]--𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)